连接酶链反应与聚合酶链反应在检测沙眼衣原体宫颈感染中的比较。

A comparison of ligase chain reaction to polymerase chain reaction in the detection of Chlamydia trachomatis endocervical infections.

作者信息

Davis J D, Riley P K, Peters C W, Rand K H

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville 32610-0294, USA.

出版信息

Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 1998;6(2):57-60. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-0997(1998)6:2<57::AID-IDOG5>3.0.CO;2-4.

DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1098-0997(1998)6:2<57::AID-IDOG5>3.0.CO;2-4

PMID:9702586

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1784783/

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the reliability of ligase chain reaction (LCR) to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in detecting Chlamydia trachomatis endocervical infections.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study of 486 patients at risk for chlamydial infection of the endocervix. We obtained two endocervical specimens from each patient and used LCR and PCR to detect C. trachomatis. Discrepant results between the two techniques were resolved by repeat testing and by testing for the major outer membrane protein (MOMP) gene, if necessary. We determined the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for each test, using concordant results or MOMP gene results as the "gold standard".

RESULTS

Of the 486 patients, 42 (8.6%) had evidence of C. trachomatis infection after resolution of discrepant results. Of the 42 true positive specimens, 41 were positive by initial LCR and 38 were positive by initial PCR. Of the 444 true negative specimens, none had a positive initial LCR result, while 2 had a positive initial PCR test. Therefore, compared to the gold standard, LCR had a sensitivity of 97.6% and specificity of 100%, while PCR had a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 99.5%. The positive and negative predictive values of LCR were 100% and 99.8%, respectively. PCR had a positive predictive value of 95% and a negative predictive value of 99.1%. The difference in sensitivity of LCR versus PCR was not statistically significant (P = .125).

CONCLUSION

LCR and PCR perform equally well in detecting C. trachomatis endocervical infections.

摘要

目的

比较连接酶链反应（LCR）与聚合酶链反应（PCR）检测沙眼衣原体宫颈内感染的可靠性。

方法

我们对486例有宫颈衣原体感染风险的患者进行了一项前瞻性研究。我们从每位患者获取两份宫颈标本，并用LCR和PCR检测沙眼衣原体。如有必要，通过重复检测和检测主要外膜蛋白（MOMP）基因来解决两种技术之间的差异结果。我们以一致结果或MOMP基因结果作为“金标准”，确定了每项检测的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值。

结果

在486例患者中，42例（8.6%）在差异结果解决后有沙眼衣原体感染的证据。在42份真阳性标本中，41份最初的LCR检测为阳性，38份最初的PCR检测为阳性。在444份真阴性标本中，没有一份最初的LCR检测结果为阳性，而有2份最初的PCR检测为阳性。因此，与金标准相比，LCR的敏感性为97.6%，特异性为100%，而PCR的敏感性为90%，特异性为99.5%。LCR的阳性和阴性预测值分别为100%和99.8%。PCR的阳性预测值为95%，阴性预测值为99.1%。LCR与PCR敏感性的差异无统计学意义（P=0.125）。